Jairo Nunes

Abstract

The impersonal verb custar (lit. ‘cost’) in European Portuguese selects for a dative experiencer argument and an infinitival clause, which may be preceded by the preposition a. Interestingly, a reflexive clitic co-referential with the experiencer argument can be deleted (under conditions to be specified) if it is within the prepositional infinitival complement, but not within its prepositionless counterpart. We argue that the presence of the preposition a preceding the infinitival complement of custar correlates with obligatory control and show how deletion of reflexive clitics within the prepositional infinitivals can be captured under the movement theory of control (MTC; see e.g. Hornstein 1991, 2001; Boeckx, Hornstein and Nunes 2010). More specifically, we show that if the infinitival subject is a deleted copy left by the “controller”, this copy can trigger deletion of the reflexive clitic as a way to satisfy a superficial ban on morphologically identical clitics in a local domain.

1 Introduction

The impersonal verb custar ‘cost’ in European Portuguese presents us
with an interesting puzzle.1 At first sight, all that needs to
be said about it is that its infinitival complement may be optionally preceded by the preposition
a ‘to’, with a corresponding subtle difference in meaning, as
illustrated in (1) below. That is, custar may select for either a prepositionless
or a prepositional infinitival as a matter of lexical subcategorization.

(1)

a.

Custou-me

cost-meCL.DAT

escrever

write-INF

o

the

relatório.

report

‘Writing the report was hard on me.’

b.

Custou-me

cost-meCL.DAT

a

to

escrever

write-INF

o

the

relatório.

report

‘It was hard for me to succeed in writing the report.’

Curiously, however, a reflexive clitic in the infinitival clause co-referring with the matrix
experiencer must sometimes be deleted in the prepositional version but not in its prepositionless
counterpart, as exemplified by the contrast in (2).

(2)

a.

Custou-me

cost-meCL.DAT

sentar-*(me)

sit-INF-CL1SG

no

on-the

chão.

ground

‘To sit on the ground pained me.’

b.

Custou-me

cost-meCL.DAT

a

to

sentar-(*me)

sit-INF-CL1SG

no

on-the

chão.

ground

‘It was hard for me to succeed in sitting on the ground.’

The sentences in (3) below present additional attested examples of this unexpected availability
of deletion of the reflexive clitic in the prepositional complement of custar. In
each of the examples, the infinitival verb should in principle be associated with a reflexive clitic
(levantar-me,
adaptar-me,
integrar-me and
convencer-me, respectively).

(3)

a.

Custou-me

cost-meCL.DAT

a

to

levantar,

raise

pois

because

estava

was

cansado

tired

do

of-the

dia

day

de

of

ontem.

yesterday

‘It was hard for me to get up because I was tired from yesterday.’

b.

Custou-me

cost-meCL.DAT

a

to

adaptar

adapt

ao

to-the

modo

way

de

of

jogar

play

do

of-the

Barcelona.

Barcelona

‘It was hard for me to succeed in playing in the manner of the Barcelona team.’

c.

não

not

sei

know

bem

well

porquê,

why

custou-me

cost-meCL.DAT

a

to

integrar

integrate

na

in-the

universidade.

university

‘I don’t know why, it was hard for me to adapt to the university.’

d.

Custou-me

cost-meCL.DAT

a

to

convencer

persuade

de

of

que

that

nada

nothing

faria

would-do

como

as

viageiro (…)

homing-pigeon

mas

but

tive

had

de

of

me

myself

render

render

à

to-the

evidência.

evidence

‘I very much resisted to recognize that it would not be successful as homing pigeon but I
eventually had to accept it.’ (Google search, 03-07-2016)

This process of reflexive deletion in European Portuguese involves a plethora of complexities.
First of all, the availability of deletion is sensitive to the type of verb involved in the embedded
clause. Putting aside lexical idiosyncrasies which may affect speakers’ judgements, three
general patterns can be identified, as outlined in (4).2

(4)

● Deletion is impossible if the reflexive clitic can alternate with a non-reflexive
argument with no significant changes in the meaning of the verb:

a.

Custou-nos

cost-usCL.DAT

a

to

ver-*(nos)

see-REFL1PL

na

in-the

fotografia.

picture

‘It was hard for us to succeed in spotting ourselves in the picture.’

a’.

Custou-nos

cost-usCL.DAT

a

to

vê-los

see-themCL.ACC

na

in-the

fotografia.

picture

‘It was hard for us to succeed in spotting them in the picture.’

● Deletion is optional with verbs that always require a reflexive clitic,
regardless of whether or not they are semantically reflexive (that is, verbs that are traditionally
classified as intrinsically “pronominal”):

b.

Custou-te

cost-youCL.DAT

a

to

arrepender-(te)

repent-REFL2SG

de

of

tudo

everything

o

the

que

what

fizeste.

did-2SG

‘It was hard for you to succeed in repenting everything you did.’

b’.

*Custou-te

cost-youCL.DAT

a

to

arrependê-la

repent-herCL.ACC

de

of

tudo

everything

o

the

que

what

fez.

did-3SG

*‘It was hard for you to make her repent everything she did.’

● Deletion is obligatory for some speakers (and possible for others) if alternation
between reflexive and non-reflexive arguments leads to (slight) changes with respect to thematic
properties of the arguments involved:3

c.

Custou-me

cost-meCL.DAT

a

to

levantar-(*me)

raise-REFL1SG

da

from-the

cadeira.

chair

‘It was hard for me to succeed in rising from the chair.’

c’.

Custou-me

cost-meCL.DAT

a

to

levantá-la

raise-herCL.ACC

da

from-the

cadeira.

chair

‘It was hard for me to succeed in raising her from the chair.’

Second, custar is, to the best of our knowledge, the only verb in European
Portuguese that allows both types of impersonal constructions illustrated in (1) and correlates
deletion of the reflexive clitic in (2)/(3) with the presence or absence of the preposition.
However, this deletion process is not necessarily dependent on the presence of the preposition
a in the embedded clause, as the contrast between (2a) and (2b) could lead one to
think. This phenomenon is also found with the (prepositionless) infinitival complement of perception
and causative verbs, as shown in (5).

(5)

a.

A

the

Maria

Maria

viu-te

saw-youCL.ACC

desequilibrar-(*te)

lose-balance-REFL2SG

e

and

não

not

te

youCL.ACC

agarrou.

grabbed

‘Maria saw you lose your balance and did not grab you.’

b.

A

the

Maria

Maria

sentiu-se

felt-REFL3SG

desequilibrar-(*se)

lose-balance-REFL3SG

e

and

caiu.

fell

‘Maria felt herself lose her balance and fell.’

c.

O

the

professor

professor

mandou-me

ordered-meCL.ACC

sentar-(*me)

sit-REFL1SG

na

in-the

fila

row

da

of-the

frente.

front

‘The professor ordered me to sit in the front row.’

d.

O

the

João

João

fez-nos

made-usCL.ACC

queixar-(*nos)

complain-REFL1PL

à

to-the

polícia.

police

‘João made us complain to the police.’

It is worth observing that the data in (5) do instantiate biclausal bare infinitival ECM
structures and should not be confused with restructuring faire-infinitive
constructions, which independently exclude reflexive clitics associated with the infinitival verb
(see Kayne 1975; Gonçalves 1999; among others). The preverbal vs. postverbal position
of the embedded subject in (6) below, for instance, respectively signals an ECM and a
faire-infinitive construction. Notice that the reflexive clitic associated with the
infinitival verb is licensed in the ECM configuration in (6a), but not in the
faire-infinitive counterpart in (6b).

(6)

a.

{Mandei/Vi}

ordered-1SG/saw-1SG

o

the

menino

boy

deitar-se.

lie-down-INF-REFL3SG

b.

*{Mandei/Vi}

ordered-1SG/saw-1SG

deitar-se

lie-down-INF-REFL3SG

o

the

menino.

boy

‘I sent the boy to bed/I saw the boy go to bed.’

A confounding factor is that for some speakers (including the first author, but not e.g. Gonçalves 1999), suppressing the reflexive can save
faire-infinitive sentences with causative verbs but, crucially, not with perception
verbs. Thus, these speakers allow a reflexive reading for (7a) below, for instance, but not for
(7b), which can only have a nonreflexive interpretation in which the infinitival subject is a null
pronoun with arbitrary interpretation. This shows that the deletion of reflexives seen in (5), for
example, is not the rescue strategy available for some speakers in faire-infinitive
constructions such as (7a), for it involves not only causative (see (5c-d)), but also perception
verbs (see (5a-b)).

(7)

a.

Mandei

ordered-1SG

deitar

lie-down-INF

o

the

menino.

boy

‘I sent the boy to bed.’ or ‘I made someone put the boy to bed.’

b.

Vi

saw-1SG

deitar

lie-down-INF

o

the

menino.

boy

‘I saw someone put the boy to bed.’ but not ‘I saw the boy go
to bed.’

Finally, deletion of reflexives also seems sensitive to the finiteness specifications of the
clause separating the two clitics. In a sentence such as (8) below, for instance, where the clitics
are separated by a finite clause, deletion is not allowed.

(8)

Eu

I

pergunto-me

ask-REFL1SG

se

if

devo

should-1SG

queixar-*(me)

complain-REFL1SG

à

to-the

polícia.

police

‘I wonder if I should complain to the police.’

This brief survey of the complexities involving reflexive deletion in European Portuguese raises
the question of what property the prepositional infinitival of custar in (1b) has
that makes it bluntly contrast with (1a) regarding the phenomenon of reflexive deletion illustrated
in (2b) and (3). As we have just seen, it cannot be just a matter of lexical subcategorization.
Crucially, we cannot say that reflexive deletion is somehow licensed by the preposition
subcategorized by custar, for it can also be licensed in the prepositionless
complement of perceptual and causative verbs (see (5)). Thus, we seem to be forced to either take
the preposition a and perceptual and causative verbs to form a natural class or
assume a construction specific condition tied to custar a banning the co-occurrence
of the relevant clitics. Needless to say, neither of these options is conceptually appealing.

Our approach to this puzzle has two parts. Building on work by Martins and Nunes (2005), we first argue that the relevant difference between (1a) and
(1b) involves obligatory control. Once this is established, we then proceed to show how the contrast
between (2a) and (2b) may receive a natural account under the movement theory of control (MTC; see
e.g. Hornstein 1999, 2001; Boeckx, Hornstein, and Nunes 2010). We should
point out at the outset that it is not our goal to undertake a comparative evaluation of different
theories of control with respect to the data presented here. Our main reason for framing the
discussion in terms of the MTC is that one of its key ingredients – namely, the assumption
that obligatorily controlled PRO is a deleted copy of the “controller” – provides
a straightforward way to handle reflexive deletion within the prepositional complement of
custar. We leave for another opportunity an adequate investigation of whether and
how non-movement approaches to control can replicate the results obtained under the MTC (see Martins and Nunes forthcoming).

Before we move to the discussion proper, some clarification remarks are in order. What matters
for the argument to be developed below is the existence of contrasts like (2), relative to the
availability of deletion of the embedded reflexive clitic. Whether deletion may be forbidden,
optional, or mandatory for different speakers is irrelevant for the ensuing discussion. What is
important is that whenever deletion is possible (for a given speaker), it takes place in the
prepositional, but not in the prepositionless, infinitival complement of custar. It
is also worth noting that the relevant contrast only arises if the infinitival verb does not allow
an intransitive use. Speakers that independently allow the verbs sentar
‘sit’ or levantar ‘to raise’, for example, to be
intransitive do not identify the contrast in (2) or see anything especial about (4c), but do so in
analogous sentences with verbs that disallow an intransitive option in their grammars.

The following attested examples involving the verb habituar ‘get used
to’ (Google search, 03/07/2016) illustrate the relevant aspects of this variation:

(9)

no

in-the

início

beginning

custou-me

cost-meCL.DAT

a

to

habituar-me

get-used-INF-REFL1SG

a

to

esta

this

realidade

reality

‘(Coming from a small village to the city), it was hard for me to succeed in adapting to
this new reality.’

(10)

No princípio

in-the beginning

custou-me

cost-meCL.DAT

a

to

habituar, (…)

get-used-INF

mas

but

agora

now

já

already

me

REFL1SG

habituei

got-used

‘It was hard for me to succeed in accepting it (i.e. having diabetes) but now I can deal
with it.’

(11)

Custou-me

cost-meCL.DAT

habituar

get-used-INF

a

to

esta

this

coisa

thing

de

of

ser

be-INF

só

only

eu.

I

Mas

but

habituei.

got-used

E

and

gosto.

like

‘It was hard to get used to being alone. But I got used to it. And I enjoy it.’

(12)

Custou-me

cost-meCL.DAT

habituar-me

get-used-INF-REFL1SG

ao

to-the

Tom

Tom

mas

but

lá

eventually

me

REFL1SG

habituei.

got-used

‘It was hard on me to get used to Tom but eventually I did.’

Speakers that allow sentences like (9) may simply not have the relevant ban on identical clitics
in their grammars and deletion is not an option. Thus, (9) contrasts with (10), where the reflexive
of the first conjunct has been deleted. That this indeed involves a case of reflexive deletion and
not an intransitive use of habituar is shown by the fact that the reflexive clitic
is present in the second conjunct of (10). Furthermore, notice that the infinitival complement in
(10) is prepositional, which conforms with the generalization that deletion is only licensed when
the preposition is present (see (2)). In turn, (11) apparently contradicts what we have just said,
for there is no reflexive in the infinitival complement and the preposition is not present either.
However, when we examine the second conjunct of (11), we see that this speaker independently treats
habituar as intransitive. Hence, (11) is not at odds with (2), for the first
conjunct does not involve deletion, but an intransitive use of habituar. Finally,
the second conjunct of (12) shows that this other speaker takes habituar to be
reflexive, but the reflexive in the first conjunct cannot be deleted because the infinitival is not
prepositional. The grammar that we will be discussing throughout the paper is the one illustrated in
(2), (3), and (10), that is, the grammar where deletion of reflexive clitics is enforced in the
prepositional complement of custar.

The paper is organized as follows. In section 2 we make some brief remarks regarding the deletion
process illustrated in (2b)/(3)/(4b’)/(4c’)/(5)/(10). It should be pointed out that our
goal is not to account for the deletion process itself, but to use it as an independent criterion of
empirical adequacy to test structures assigned to (1a) and (1b). In section 3 we show that the two
infinitival complements in (1) sharply contrast with respect to obligatory control diagnostics and
that the type of deletion seen in (2b) is limited to the obligatory control structure. Given this
result, in section 4 we show that this correlation between obligatory control and deletion can
receive a straightforward account if the obligatorily controlled infinitival subject is analyzed as
copy of the “controller”, as postulated by the MTC. Section 5 presents some concluding
remarks.

2 Some remarks on the deletion of reflexive clitics with custar a

Bearing in mind that only the prepositional complement of custar may allow for
deletion (see (2a) vs. (2b)), let us consider the data in (13) and (14).

(13)

a.

Custou-me

cost-meCL.DAT

a

to

sentar-(*me)

sit-REFL1SG

no

on-the

chão.

ground

‘It was hard for me to succeed in sitting on the ground.’

b.

Custou-te

cost-youCL.DAT

a

to

sentar-(*te)

sit-REFL2SG

no

on-the

chão.

ground

‘It was hard for you to succeed in sitting on the ground.’

(14)

a.

Custou-me

cost-meCL.DAT

a

to

sentá-lo

seat-himCL.ACC

naquele

on-that

banco.

bench

‘It was hard for me to succeed in seating him on that bench.’

b.

Custou-lhe

cost-himCL.DAT

a

to

pagar-lhe

pay-himCL.DAT

toda

all

a

the

dívida.

debt

‘It was hard for [him/her]i to succeed in paying [him/her]k all the
debt.’

At first sight, the contrast between the sentences in (13), on the one hand, and (14a), on the
other, simply indicates that deletion is triggered when the clitic in the embedded clause is
identical to the clitic attached to custar; hence, deletion takes place in (13a)
and (13b), but not in (14a). However, the contrast between the two sentences of (13) and (14b) shows
that phonological identity is not sufficient, for the two clitics in (14b) are identical, but
deletion is not triggered. Upon close inspection, we can see that deletion targets reflexive
clitics; hence, it is possible in (13), but not in (14).4

For the sake of completeness, it should be noted that some speakers may allow deletion of
reflexive se in the presence of a third person dative clitic, as illustrated in
(15) and the attested example in (16).5

This seems to suggest that for some speakers, se and lhe are to
be computed as morphologically similar enough to trigger deletion of the reflexive. As pointed out
to us by Renato Lacerda (personal communication), this may be less unexpected than it looks if one
takes into consideration that in Spanish, the reflexive se may be a suppletive form
of the dative le in “spurious”-se constructions, as
shown in (17) (see e.g. Perlmutter 1971; Bonet 1995).

(17)

Se/*Le

SE/himCL.DAT.3SG

lo

itCL.ACC

diste.

gave.2SG

(Spanish)

‘You gave it to him/her.’

What matters for the purposes of our discussion is that for speakers who allow deletion of
se in sentences such as (15), they only permit it in the prepositional version. In
the following discussion we will abstract away from the variation regarding sentences like (15), for
it does not interfere with the distinction between the two types of infinitival complements
associated with custar.

3 Differences between the two infinitival complements of custar

Let us now return to the intriguing puzzle in (2), repeated below in (18), and discuss
differences between the two types of complement of custar that may provide a basis
for us to account for why deletion is triggered in (18b) and blocked in (18a).

(18)

a.

Custou-me

cost-meCL.DAT

sentar-*(me)

sit-REFL1SG

no

on-the

chão.

ground

‘To sit on the ground pained me.’

b.

Custou-me

cost-meCL.DAT

a

to

sentar-(*me)

sit-REFL1SG

no

on-the

chão.

ground

‘It was hard for me to succeed in sitting on the ground.’

3.1 Some interpretive differences

Despite their similarities, the two infinitival complements of custar contrast
in many aspects (see Martins and Nunes 2005). Although the
experiencer argument of custar is interpreted as affected by the state of affairs
described in the infinitival clause of both types of complements, in the prepositional version it is
also interpreted as being more actively engaged in carrying out the events described in the
infinitival. This is very clear in the pair of sentences in (19) below, where the speaker’s
attitude towards the secretary goes in opposite directions depending on whether or not the
infinitival is prepositional. Hence, the two structures may be pragmatically adequate with antonym
verbs in the infinitival domain, as illustrated in (20). (20b), in particular, would be
pragmatically odd with perder (‘lose’) instead of
ganhar (‘win’).

(19)

a.

Custou-me

cost-meCL.DAT

despedir

fire-INF

a

the

secretária.

secretary

‘I felt pity that the secretary was fired’

b.

Custou-me

cost-meCL.DAT

a

to

despedir

fire

a

the

secretária.

secretary

‘It took a lot of effort on my side for me to succeed in firing the secretary.’

(20)

a.

Custou-lhes

cost-themCL.DAT

muito

much

perder

lose-INF

o

the

jogo.

game

‘It was very painful for them to lose the game.’

b.

Custou-lhes

cost-themCL.DAT

muito

much

a

to

ganhar

win

o

the

jogo.

game

‘It took them a lot of continued effort to succeed in winning the game.’

Also telling is the pragmatic oddness of b-sentences in (21) and (22) below, as
people are not normally engaged in bringing about the kind of events described in their embedded
clauses.

(21)

a.

Custou-me

cost-meCL.DAT

ver

see-INF

morrer

die-INF

o

the

cachorro.

dog

‘Seeing the dog die was painful for me.’

b.

#Custou-me

cost-meCL.DAT

a

to

ver

see-INF

morrer

die-INF

o

the

cachorro.

dog

‘It was hard for me to succeed in the goal of seeing the dog die.’

(22)

a.

Custou-me

cost-meCL.DAT

muito

much

perder

lose-INF

o

the

meu

my

amigo.

friend

‘Losing my friend was very painful for me.’

b.

#Custou-me

cost-meCL.DAT

muito

much

a

to

perder

lose-INF

o

the

meu

my

amigo.

friend

‘It took some effort on my side in order for me to lose my friend.’

This engagement by the experiencer in the prepositional version may also correlate with duration,
as illustrated by the different interpretations of (23a) and (23b) below. It is also behind the
oddness of (24a) against the felicity of (24b).8

(23)

a.

Todas

all

as

the

manhãs

mornings

me

meCL.DAT

custa

costs

acordar.

wake-up-INF

‘Every morning waking up upsets me.’

b.

Todas

all

as

the

manhãs

mornings

me

meCL.DAT

custa

costs

a

to

acordar.

wake-up-INF

‘Every morning it takes some time for me to get awake.’

(24)

a.

#Por

for

causa

cause

da

of-the

greve

strike

dos

of-the

transportes,

transportation

custou-me

cost-meCL.DAT

chegar

arrive-INF

a

on

horas

time

ao

to-the

trabalho.

work

‘Due to the strike in public transportation, I felt bad about getting to work on
time.’

b.

Por

for

causa

cause

da

of-the

greve

strike

dos

of-the

transportes,

transportation

custou-me

cost-meCL.DAT

a

to

chegar

arrive-INF

a

on

horas

time

ao

to-the

trabalho.

work

‘Due to the strike in public transportation, it took me a lot of effort and time to get to
work on time.’

3.2 Some differences in structural complexity

The two infinitival complements also contrast in terms of structural complexity, as the
prepositional version does not license auxiliaries (see (25)), modals (see (26)), or independent
time adverbials (see (27)):

(25)

a.

Custou-me

cost-meCL.DAT

ter

have-INF

estado

been

em

on

pé

foot

tanto

much

tempo.

time

‘Having been standing up for so long was painful for me.’

b.

*Custou-me

cost-meCL.DAT

a

to

ter

have

estado

been

em

on

pé

foot

tanto

much

tempo.

time

‘It was hard for me to succeed in having stood up for so long.’

(26)

a.

Custa-me

costs-meCL.DAT

só

only

poder

can-INF

beber

drink

água.

water

‘Being allowed to drink only water is hard for me’

b.

*Custa-me

costs-meCL.DAT

a

to

só

only

poder

can

beber

drink

água.

water

‘It is hard for me to succeed in being allowed to drink only water.’

(27)

a.

Custa-me

costs-meCL.DAT

só

only

ter

have-INF

folga

day-off

amanhã.

tomorrow

‘Being off duty only tomorrow upsets me.’

b.

*Custa-me

costs-meCL.DAT

a

to

só

only

ter

have

folga

day-off

amanhã.

tomorrow

‘It has been hard for me to succeed in being off duty only tomorrow.’

3.3 Standard Control diagnostics

The interpretive and structural differences reported above suggest that the prepositional
infinitival but not its prepositionless counterpart may instantiate obligatory control. This is
further confirmed when unequivocal diagnostics of obligatory control are examined, as we will show
below.

3.3.1 Licensing of independent subjects

The two infinitivals differ in their ability to license an overt subject. The attested
prepositionless example in (28a), for instance, sharply contrast with its prepositional counterpart
in (28b) in allowing an overt subject (which indicates that the prepositionless sentence displays an
inflected infinitive, a matter we will return to in section 3.3.5).

(28)

a.

Custou-me

cost-meCL.DAT

ele

he

levar

take-INF

o

the

exercício

exercise

em

in

branco.

white

‘It upset me that he went to school without his homework assignment done.’

The contrast in (28) can be accounted for if the prepositional but not the prepositionless
infinitival involves obligatory control. Accordingly, only prepositionless infinitivals can license
a (null) expletive, as illustrated in (29).

(29)

a.

Custa-nos

costs-usCL.DAT

[expl

haver

exist-INF

pessoas

people

com

with

fome]

hunger

‘That there are hungry people pains us.’

b.

*Custou-nos

cost-usCL.DAT

a

to

[expl

haver

exist

estudantes

students

preparados

prepared

para

for

o

the

exame]

exam

If the prepositionless infinitival can license an independent subject within its clause, as the
combination of the data in (28) and (29) clearly shows, we are led to expect that in sentences such
as (30), the null subject of the prepositionless infinitival need not correfer with the matrix
experiencer, whereas the null subject of the prepositional version (as an instance of obligatory
control) must.

(30)

a.

Custou-mei

cost-meCL.DAT

[eci/k

reprovar

fail-INF

esse

that

aluno]

student

‘That I/other people failed that student pained me.’

b.

Custou-mei

cost-meCL.DAT

a

to

[eci/*k

reprovar

fail

esse

that

aluno]

student

‘It was hard for me to succeed in failing that student.’/*‘It was hard for me
to succeed in having other people fail that student.’

We take this prediction to be essentially correct, but it should be observed that there is a very
strong bias for the embedded null subject to take the experiencer of custar as its
antecedent, which leads some speakers (including one of the anonymous reviewers) to reject (30a)
with index k and other analogous structures. We do not have an account of why this
bias is stronger for some speakers and not others, but we would like to mention two points that
support our description of the data. First, the non-correferential interpretation in out-of-the-blue
sentences such as (30a) may become more salient if an appropriate pragmatic context is provided.
This is illustrated in (31) below, for instance, where the context set by the question in (31A)
pragmatically precludes the correferential reading for the null subject of the infinitival in (31B).
Crucially, no pragmatic context is able to license the non-correferential reading with prepositioned
infinitivals.9

(31)

A:

O

the

que

what

achas

think

do

of-the

Mário?

Mario

‘What do you think of Mario?’

B:

Custa-me

cost-meCL.DAT

ter

have-INF

tanto

such

talento

talent

e

and

não

not

o

it

aproveitar.

profit-INF

‘It pains me that he is so talented and does not take advantage of it.’

More importantly, the bias towards the correferential interpretation can be turned around via
contrastively focused pronouns. In a subject control construction such as (32) below, for instance,
the postverbal pronoun in the infinitival is interpreted as imposing a contrastive focus on the
embedded subject (for relevant discussion, see e.g. Costa
2004; Barbosa 2009; Szabolcsi 2009). When a contrastively focused pronoun is added to (30), as shown in (33),
the contrast now becomes crystal clear: the pronoun can impose a contrastive focus interpretation on
an embedded subject linked to a discourse antecedent in the prepositionless complement of
custar, but not in its prepositional counterpart.10

(32)

[o

the

João]i

João

quer

wants

[eci

resolver

solve-INF

elei/*k

he

o

the

problema.

problem

‘João wants to solve the problem himself.’

(33)

a.

Custou-mei

cost-meCL.DAT

[eck

resolver

solve-INF

elek

he

o

the

problema]

problem

‘That he himself solved the problem pained me.’

b.

*Custou-mei

cost-meCL.DAT

a

to

[eck

resolver

solve

elek

he

o

the

problema]

problem

3.3.2 The requirement of a local antecedent

(34a) below shows that to the extent that the null subject of the prepositionless infinitival may
take an antecedent, it need not be local, whereas (34b) shows that the antecedent of the subject of
the prepositional infinitival must be local. Like what we saw in section 3.3.1, the contrast becomes
more salient if contrastive focus is added to the picture, as shown in (35).

(34)

a.

[O

the

Rui]k

Rui

acha

thinks

que

that

mei

me

custou

cost

[eci/k

escrever

write-INF

o

the

relatório]

report

‘Rui thinks that my/his writing the report pained me.’

b.

[O

the

Rui]k

Rui

acha

thinks

que

that

mei

me

custou

cost

a

to

[eci/*k

escrever

write

o

the

relatório]

report

‘João thinks that it was hard for me to succeed in writing the report.’

(35)

a.

[O

the

Rui]k

Rui

acha

thinks

que

that

mei

me

custou

cost

[eck

escrever

write-INF

elek

he

o

the

relatório]

report

‘Rui thinks that his writing the report (himself) pained me.’

b.

*[O

the

Rui]k

Rui

acha

thinks

que

that

mei

me

custou

cost

a

to

[eck

escrever

write-INF

elek

he

o

the

relatório]

report

3.3.3 On the c-command condition and the nature of the antecedent

The argument that the null subject in (34b)/(35b) requires a local antecedent presupposes that
the dative argument of custar sits in a c-commanding position. That this holds true
is shown by the Principle C effect illustrated in (36).

(36)

*Custou-lhei

cost-himCL.DAT

a

to

criticar

criticize

[o

the

João]i

João

*‘It was hard for himi to succeed in criticizing
Joãoi.’

That being so, one predicts that a DP within the experiencer should not count as a proper
antecedent for the null subject of a prepositional infinitival, due to lack of c-command.
Unfortunately, this prediction cannot be tested because the experiencer argument of
custar can be realized by a dative clitic, but not by a full DP, as illustrated in
(37). We speculate that this idiosyncrasy is related to the inherent nature of the Case assigned by
custar to its experiencer.

(37)

*Custou

cost

ao

to-the

João

João

a

to

escrever

write

o

the

relatório.

report

‘It was hard for João to succeed in writing the report.’

The fact that custar assigns (inherent) dative Case to its specifier yields an
additional contrast between the two infinitival complements of custar. As shown in
(38) below, the indefinite clitic se is not licensed in the prepositionless
infinitival. However, some speakers (including the first author) allow it with the prepositional
infinitival, as illustrated by (39a) and the attested example in (39b). Interestingly, these
speakers also allow constructions such as (40), where custar functions as a raising
verb.

‘It is difficult to find it nowadays but you can still catch it (that fish).’

(40)

Custei

cost-PAST-1SG

a

to

acreditar

believe

numa

in-a

coisa

thing

daquelas.

of-those

‘It was hard for me to believe in such a thing.’

Under the standard assumption that indefinite se is intrinsically nominative,
the ungrammaticality of (38) (for all speakers) and (39) for speakers who do not allow (40) is due
to a feature clash, as the verb custar assigns inherent dative Case to its
specifier (see section 3.3.2). For speakers who also admit a raising construction for
custar, (39) is to be derived on a par with (40), with se being
raised from the embedded clause directly to the subject position of the matrix clause, where
nominative Case is available.11

3.3.4 Only-DP antecedents, VP-ellipsis, and de se readings

Additional confirmation for distinguishing the two infinitival complements of
custar in terms of obligatory control is provided by the interpretive properties of
sentences such as the ones in (41)-(43) below. The null subject of the prepositionless infinitival
allows coreferential and bound readings when anteceded by an only-DP (see (41a)),
permits strict and sloppy readings under ellipsis (see (42a)), and is compatible with a
non-de se reading in contexts of lack of self-awareness (see (43a)). By contrast,
the null subject of the prepositional infinitival displays the opposite behavior: it enforces a
bound reading when anteceded by an only-DP (see (41b)), triggers a sloppy
interpretation under ellipsis (see (42b)), and only allows de se readings, thus
being pragmatically infelicitous in the context provided in (43) (see (43b)).

‘It pained both me and João that I had to deliver the news.’ (strict reading) or
‘It pained me that I had to deliver the news and it also pained João that he had to
deliver the news.’ (sloppy reading).

b.

Custou-me

cost-meCL.DAT

a

to

[ec

dar

give

a

the

notícia]

news

e

and

ao

to-the

João

João

custou-lhe

cost-him

também

too

‘I was hard for me to succeed in delivering the news and it was hard for João to
succeed in delivering the news, too.’ (sloppy reading only)

(43)

Context: An amnesiac soldier sees a documentary in which he is the protagonist, but he
doesn’t remember that he himself is the protagonist

a.

Custou-lhe

cost-him

[ec

depor

lay-down-INF

as

the

armas]

weapons

‘It pained him that the protagonist laid down his weapons.’

b.

#Custou-lhe

cost-him

a

to

[ec

depor

lay-down-INF

as

the

armas]

weapons

‘It was hard for him to succeed in laying down his weapons.’

3.3.5 Differences regarding inflection

Finally, the two infinitival complements also contrast in terms of inflection. The
prepositionless infinitival allows subject agreement morphology, but not the prepositional one:

(44)

a.

Custou-nos

cost-usCL.DAT

[ec

reprovar(mos)

fail-INF-1PL

aquele

that

aluno]

student

‘That we failed that student pained us.’

b.

Custou-nos

cost-usCL.DAT

a

to

[ec

reprovar(*mos)

fail-INF-1PL

aquele

that

aluno]

student

‘It was hard for us to succeed in failing that student.’

The availability of agreement morphology in (44a) is actually not surprising, for the
prepositionless infinitival can license an independent subject, as discussed in section 3.3.1. As
for (44b), there was not an a priori expectation, for in European Portuguese
subject control verbs generally do not license overt agreement morphology, whereas object control
optionally do so, as illustrated in (45). In this regard, what (44b) shows is that it patterns like
subject rather than object control.

(45)

a.

Nós

we

tentamos

tried-1PL

contratar(*mos)

hire-INF-1PL

o

the

Pedro.

Pedro

‘We tried to hire Pedro.’

b.

O

the

João

João

convenceu-nos

convinced-us

a

to

contratar(mos)

hire-INF-1PL

o

the

Pedro.

Pedro

‘João convinced us to hire Pedro.’

There is actually interesting indirect evidence that shows that it is not the case that the
prepositional infinitival in (44b) has ф-features that do not get morphologically realized,
but rather that it simply has no ф-features. The evidence is based on Raposo’s (1987) observation that only uninflected infinitives license
tough-movement, as shown in (46).

(46)

Esses

these

livros

books

são

are

difíceis

hard

de

of

ler(*mos)

read-INF-1PL

‘These books are hard to read.’

Interestingly, only the prepositional complement of custar allows a
tough-like construction, as illustrated in (47) and (48).12 If the two infinitivals were featurally identical, one should in principle
expect both of them to allow tough-movement in (47) and (48). The fact that this is
not what happens may be taken to show that the prepositionless infinitival has ф-features,
which may be morphologically realized or not, whereas the prepositional infinitival has no
ф-features whatsoever.

(47)

a.

*Aqueles

those

alunos

students

custaram

cost-PAST-3PL

reprovar.

fail-INF

b.

Aqueles

those

alunos

students

custaram

cost-PAST-3PL

a

to

reprovar.

fail

‘Those students were hard to fail.’

(48)

a.

*Estas

these

caixas

boxes

custam

cost-PAST-3PL

imenso

immense

carregar.

carry-INF

b.

Estas

these

caixas

boxes

custam

cost-PAST-3PL

imenso

immense

a

to

carregar.

carry

‘These boxes are very hard to carry.’

3.4 Summary

In sum, the prepositional infinitival complement of custar involves obligatory
control, whereas its prepositionless infinitival complement does not, as sketched in (49).

(49)

a.

[… [CL.DAT [custar [pro V-INF… ]]]]

b.

[… [CL.DATi [custar [PROia V-INF …]]]

(49a) involves a personal infinitive which may license a pro in the subject
position; pro may – but need not – be bound by the experiencer argument
in the specifier of the VP headed by custar (see section 3.3.1). By contrast, the
embedded subject of (49b), as an instance of obligatorily controlled PRO, must be bound by the
experiencer argument of custar, as it is the most local c-commanding
antecedent.

Having characterized the infinitival complements of custar, we may now go back
to the puzzle of why prepositional infinitivals may trigger the deletion of a reflexive clitic.

4 Back to the deletion puzzle

Once the fundamental control difference between the two types of infinitival complements selected
by custar has been identified in section 3, the data in (2), repeated below in
(50), can be taken to show that deletion of reflexives locally bound by an (identical) clitic (see
section 2) is only operative within the obligatory control structure (i.e. the prepositional
infinitival complement).

(50)

a.

Custou-me

cost-meCL.DAT

sentar-*(me)

sit-INF-REFL1SG

no

on-the

chão.

ground

‘To sit on the ground pained me.’

b.

Custou-me

cost-meCL.DAT

a

to

sentar-(*me)

sit-INF-REFL1SG

no

on-the

chão.

ground

‘It was hard for me to succeed in sitting on the ground.’

This conclusion is confirmed by standard object control constructions (with a transitive control
verb and an accusative Case marked controller) such as (51) and the attested examples in (52) (CETEM-Público, 04/07/2016), which show that deletion of the
reflexive is also possible if the controller is an (identical) clitic (see section 2).

(51)

a.

Eles

they

obrigaram-nos

forced-us

a

to

afastar-(*nos)

get-away-REFL1PL

daquele

from-that

caminho.

path

‘They forced us to get away from that path.’

b.

O

the

médico

doctor

vai

goes

forçar-te

force-you

a

to

sentar-(*te)

sit-REFL2SG

de

of

outra

other

maneira.

manner

‘The doctor will force you to sit in another way.’

(52)

a.

Uma

a

bala

bullet

passou

passed

rasante

low

sobre

over

a

the

minha

my

cabeça (…)

head

obrigando-me

forcing-me

a

to

deitar

lie

no

on-the

chão.

floor

‘A bullet passed low over my head, forcing-me to lie on the floor.’

b.

Com

with

um

a

sorriso,

smile

convidaram-nos

invited-3PL-us

a

to

sentar.

sit

‘With a smile, they invited us to take a seat.’

c.

Após

after

ter

have-INF

caído

fallen

de

on

costas

back

num

in-a

pântano,

swamp

apressou-se

hastened-REFL3SG

a

to

levantar

raise

e

and

a

to

pedir

ask

desculpas

apologies

ao

to-the

instrutor

instructor

pelo

for-the

erro.

mistake

‘After falling on his back in a swamp, he hastened to get back to his feet and apologize to
the instructor for the mistake.’

It is worth noting another parallel. Recall that standard object control in European Portuguese
allows the infinitival to optionally carry overt agreement morphology, whereas the prepositional
complement of custar bans such inflection (see section 3.3.5). Interestingly, only
the non-agreeing version licenses deletion of reflexive clitics, as illustrated by the contrast
between the uninflected infinitives of (51) and their inflected counterparts in (53).

(53)

a.

Eles

they

obrigaram-nos

forced-us

a

to

afastarmo-*(nos)

get-away-1PL-REFL1PL

daquele

from-that

caminho.

path

‘They forced us to get away from that path.’

b.

O

the

médico

doctor

vai

goes

forçar-te

force-you

a

to

sentares-*(te)

sit-2SG-REFL2SG

de

of

outra

other

maneira.

manner

‘The doctor will force you to sit in another way.’

However, deletion of reflexives when bound by an (identical) local clitic is not restricted to
object control configurations. Recall that this phenomenon is also found with the infinitival
complement of perception and causative verbs (see section 1), as illustrated in (54) (= (5)).

(54)

a.

A

the

Maria

Maria

viu-te

saw-you

desequilibrar-(*te)

lose-balance-REFL2SG

e

and

não

not

te

you

agarrou.

grabbed

‘Maria saw you lose your balance and did not grab you.’

b.

A

the

Maria

Maria

sentiu-se

felt-REFL3SG

desequilibrar-(*se)

lose-balance-REFL3SG

e

and

caiu.

fell

‘Maria felt herself lose her balance and fell.’

c.

O

the

professor

professor

mandou-me

ordered-me

sentar-(*me)

sit-REFL1SG

na

in-the

fila

row

da

of-the

frente

front

‘The professor ordered me to sit in the front row.’

d.

O

the

João

João

fez-nos

made-us

queixar-(*nos)

complain-REFL1PL

à

to-the

polícia.

police

‘João made us complain to the police.’

The contrast between sentences such as the ones in (54), where deletion is available, and (55)
below (= (8)), where deletion is blocked, suggests that the co-occurrence restriction that triggers
reflexive deletion is clause bound. Hence, the two clitics in (55) do not interact with each other
because they belong to different clauses.

(55)

Eu

I

pergunto-me

ask-REFL1SG

se

if

devo

should-1SG

queixar-*(me)

complain-REFL1SG

à

to-the

polícia.

police

‘I wonder if I should complain to-the police.’

Importantly, what matters is not exactly where the higher clitic ends up, but where it is
generated. In (54) the upper clitic is generated in the embedded clause and later cliticizes to the
matrix verb (see e.g. Gonçalves 1999; Martins 2000), as becomes clearer with sentences such as (56)
below, which involves proclisis to the matrix verb. To put it in different terms, the higher clitic
of (54) and (56) has a chance to interact with the reflexive, triggering the deletion of the latter,
before it moves to the matrix clause. In (55), on the other hand, there is no derivational step
where the two clitics appear in the same clausal domain.

(56)

A

the

Maria

Maria

não

not

me

me

viu

saw

desequilibrar-(*me).

lose-balance-REFL1SG

‘Maria didn’t see me lose my balance.’

Bearing these observations in mind, let us examine the (simplified) structures associated with
(50), as respectively sketched in (57).

(57)

a.

[proexpl custou-me [pro
sentar-me no chão]]

b.

[proexpl custou-mei [PROi a
sentar-me no chão]]

As discussed in section 3, the empty category in the embedded subject position is
pro in the case of the prepositionless infinitival complement of
custar (see (57a)), but an obligatorily controlled PRO in the prepositional version
(see (57b)). However, this difference does not seem to be of much help. Given that deletion of the
reflexive is triggered in (57b), but blocked in (57a), one would like to treat (57a) on a par with
(55), which also blocks deletion, and (57b) with (54) and (56), which trigger deletion. In this
sense, (57a) and (55) may be taken to form a natural class in the sense that its clitics are
generated and surface in different clauses. Hence, it may be expected that they do not interact
– a correct result. However, (57b) and (54)/(56) do not seem to form a natural class, for the
higher clitic is generated in the embedded clause in the latter, but in the higher clause in the
representation in (57b). In other words, if the co-occurrence restriction under discussion is indeed
clause bound, the representation in (57b) leads to the incorrect prediction that the two clitics do
not interact and the reflexive cannot be deleted.

The intriguing contrast between (57a) and (57b) ceases to be puzzling, though, if the
obligatorily controlled PRO in (57b) is actually a deleted copy of the “controller”, as
postulated by the MTC (see e.g. Hornstein 1999, 2001; Boeckx, Hornstein and Nunes
2010). We have seen that custar assigns inherent dative Case to its
specifier (see section 3.3.3) and selects for either a personal or an impersonal infinitival
complement (see section 3.3.5). If the embedded infinitival is personal, it assigns nominative to
its Spec, regardless of whether or not its ф-features are morphologically realized, i.e.,
whether or not it is inflected (see section 3.3.5). The embedded subject then gets frozen in the
embedded clause and custar must assign its other θ-role to a new element
selected from the numeration. By contrast, if the infinitival is impersonal, it does not assign Case
to its subject. Under the MTC, the subject may then move to [Spec, custar], where
it gets an additional θ-role and is assigned inherent dative Case. Thus, the MTC analyzes the
sentences in (50) along the lines of (58), where the embedded subject position of (50b) involves a
copy of the “controller” in the embedded subject position.

(58)

Representations of (50) under the MTC:

a.

[proexpl custou-me [pro
sentar-me no chão]]

b.

[proexpl custou-mei [mei a
sentar-me no chão]]

In (58b) – but not in (58a) – there are two instances of the same clitic within the
embedded clause. However, this is usually not tolerated in European Portuguese, as seen with ECM
constructions in (54)/(56). Given that the ungrammaticality of the two clitics in (50b) parallels
that of the sentences in (54)/(56), the exceptional deletion of the reflexive clitic in (50b) can be
viewed as a way to comply with the superficial filter ruling out morphologically identical clitics
within the same clause (see (58b)). As for (50a), no problem arises as the subject of the
infinitival (pro) is not a clitic (see (58a)); hence, it is morphologically
distinct from the reflexive clitic and no deletion is triggered. To sum up, the major assumption of
the MTC – namely, that obligatorily controlled PRO is a (deleted) copy of its antecedent
– provides a straightforward account of why reflexive deletion within the infinitival
complement of custar can only take place if custar is used as an
obligatory control verb.13

5 Concluding remarks

The MTC has all the ingredients to provide an account for the curious problem brought up by (59)
(= (2)), which shows that reflexive clitics may be deleted in the infinitival complement of
custar when it is used as an obligatory control verb.

(59)

a.

Custou-me

cost-meCL.DAT

sentar-*(me)

sit-INF-REFL1SG

no

on-the

chão.

ground

‘To sit on the ground pained me.’

b.

Custou-me

cost-meCL.DAT

a

to

sentar-(*me)

sit-INF-REFL1SG

no

on-the

chão.

ground

‘It was hard for me to succeed in sitting on the ground.’

Under the MTC, we expect obligatorily controlled PRO to behave like a regular copy of its
antecedent. More precisely, we expect obligatorily controlled PRO to be subject to whatever
computations and restrictions apply to its antecedent in the post-syntactic components of grammar.
We have seen that the co-occurrence restriction under discussion computes obligatorily controlled
PRO but not a co-referential pro. From the perspective of the MTC, this is not at
all surprising. If PRO is a copy of its antecedent (in this particular case, a copy of the
experiencer clitic associated with custar), it may be computed with respect to the
ban on morphologically identical clitics in a local domain and trigger reflexive deletion.

The discussion above has focused on the apparently erratic behavior of a single lexical item in
European Poruguese (custar), but should also be considered under a broader (even if
speculative) perspective. It is very likely that the lexical idiosyncrasy of custar
regarding the optionality of the preposition in its infinitival complement illustrated in (1),
repeated here in (60), is something that can be acquired based on primary linguistic data. That is,
a child exposed to data parallel to (60a) and (60b) may reach the reasonable conclusion that the
optionality in (60) is a matter of lexical subcategorization: custar may select for
either a prepositionless or a prepositional infinitival.

(60)

a.

Custou-me

cost-meCL.DAT

escrever

write-INF

o

the

relatório.

report

‘Writing the report was hard on me.’

b.

Custou-me

cost-meCL.DAT

a

to

escrever

write

o

the

relatório.

report

‘It was hard for me to succeed in writing the report.’

However, all the complexities associated with reflexive deletion discussed in the preceding
sections make it clear that it is very implausible to assume that a child could attain all the
intricacies involving the contrast between (59a) and (59b) by relying solely on primary linguistic
data. In other words, the differences between the two types of infinitival complements of
custar discussed in this paper present an interesting poverty-of-stimulus puzzle
and we have the ingredients to outline an innatist answer if control involves movement to thematic
positions, as advocated by the MTC.

The steps towards such an answer go like this. In the process of language acquisition, a child
must identify the inventory of lexical items of the target language that allow for obligatory
control. In the case under discussion, a child acquiring European Portuguese must identify that
(60b) involves obligatory control. Once this is attained, a child equipped with the MTC will assign
the structure in (61) below to the sentence in (59b). In other words, the child will know –
even in absence of positive evidence – that the experiencer of the matrix clause may be
computed with respect to the co-occurrence restriction involving the embedded reflexive in (59b),
thanks to its copy in the subject of the embedded clause. This predicts, for instance, that children
should not master the contrast between (59a) and (59b) before establishing that structures such as
(60b) involve obligatory control.

(61)

[proexpl custou-mei
[mei a sentar-me no chão]]

Whether these speculative remarks can be adequately fleshed out or the predictions they make are
on the right track is a matter that requires an independent detailed investigation, going beyond the
scope of this paper.

Notes

1Throughout the paper, judgments are due to the first author, except when indicated otherwise. The
patterns to be discussed here do not exist in Brazilian Portuguese, which only has the raising
version of custar (see the example in (40) below and Martins and Nunes 2005 for relevant discussion).

2In the following discussion we will abstract away from these independent lexical restrictions,
for they do not interfere with the distinction between the two types of infinitival complements
associated with custar. That is, lexical conditioning may derive the pattern in (4)
for the prepositional complement, but deletion is uniformly ruled out in the case of the
prepositionless complement, regardless of the lexical items involved. For concreteness, we will
henceforth focus on examples of the type described in (4c). For relevant discussion and further
refinements on types of reflexive verbs, see e.g. Burzio (1986); Cinque (1988); Vilela (1992); Brito, Duarte and Matos (2003); Duarte
(2013); Gonçalves and Raposo (2013); Mendikoetxea (1999); Peregrín
Otero (1999); Sánchez López (2002).

3For instance, reflexive structures with verbs of this class differ from reflexive structures with
standard transitive verbs like see in being incompatible with passives and
disallowing reflexive clitic doubling, as respectively shown in (i) and (ii). Note that, in (i), a
implies a’ but b does not imply b’.

(i)

a.

Ele

he

viu-se

saw-REFL3SG

no

in-the

espelho.

mirror

‘He saw himself at the mirror.’

a’

Ele

he

foi

was

visto

seen

no

in-the

espelho.

mirror

‘He was seen at the mirror.’

b.

Ele

he

levantou-se

raised-REFL3SG

do

from-the

chão.

floor

‘He rose from the floor.’

b’

#Ele

he

foi

was

levantado

raised

do

from-the

chão.

floor

‘He was raised from the floor.’

(ii)

a.

Ele

he

viu-se

saw-REFL3SG

a

to

si

REFL3SG

próprio

own

no

in-the

espelho.

mirror

‘He saw himself at the mirror.’

b.

*?Ele

he

sentou-se

sat-REFL3SG

a

to

si

REFL3SG

próprio

own

na

in-the

cadeira.

chair

‘He sat at the chair.’

4As observed by a reviewer, the two clitics in sentences like (13a), for example, are not clearly
identical from a morphological point of view, for the higher clitic is a pronoun with dative Case,
whereas the lower clitic is a reflexive with accusative Case. The point is well taken, but it is
worth observing that in Portuguese, first and second person clitics have syncretic forms for datives
and accusatives, as well as for pronouns and reflexives, as respectively illustrated below. For
concreteness, we will assume that such syncretism obliterates the relevant differences between these
clitics, rendering them identical. Whatever the ultimate specification of identity turns out to be,
the relevant point for our concerns is that it affects only the prepositional infinitival complement
of custar.

(i)

a.

Ele

he

deu-me

gave-meDAT

um

a

presente.

gift

‘He gave me a gift.’

b.

Ele

he

viu-me.

saw-meACC

‘He saw me.’

(ii)

a.

Ele

he

barbeou-me

shaved-mePRON

ontem.

yesterday

‘He shaved me yesterday.’

b.

Eu

I

barbeei-me

shaved-meREFL

ontem.

yesterday

‘He shaved me yesterday.’

5That deletion of the reflexive is not an option for all speakers is shown by the attested example
in (i) below, to be contrasted with (16).

6In (15) we are reporting judgements by speakers who accept deletion of reflexive
se and do not have an intransitive use of sentar. The first author
does not accept deletion of se in the presence of a third person dative clitic.

7Example taken from: Fernando Oliveira, A Menina do Rio, Published June 20th 2016
by Books on Demand, p. 8. In this novel one finds the standard, non-intransitive use of the verb
levantar.

8For the ambiguity of the preposition a between a true preposition and an
aspectual marker, see Gonçalves (1992, 1996); Duarte (1993);
Gonçalves and Freitas (1996); Barbosa and Cochofel
(2005); among others.

9Further relevant examples are given in (i) and (ii) below, whose prepositional counterparts would
be fully ungrammatical.

(i)

Quanto

as

a

to

esse

that

miúdo,

kid

custa-me

cost-meCL.DAT

ter

have-INF

tanto

such

talento

talent

e

and

não

not

o

it

aproveitar.

profit-INF

‘As for that kid, it pains me that he is so talented and does not take advantage of
it.’

(ii)

A:

—

Porque

why

é

is

que

that

está

is

tão

so

aborrecido

upset

comigo?

with-me

Ainda

still

é

is

por

for

causa

cause

daquele

of-that

aluno?

student

‘Why are you so upset with me? Is it still about that student?’

B:

—

É.

is

Custou-me

cost-meCL.DAT

ter

have-INF

reprovado

failed

um

a

aluno

student

que

that

sabe

know

bem

well

que

that

não

not

merecia.

deserved

‘Yes, it is. It pained me that you failed a student that you know well didn’t deserve
it.’

10Note that (32) displays obligatory control. Thus, in contrast to (33), there is no disjoint
reference interpretation available for the subjects even if the embedded subject is focused, as
shown in (i) below. Importantly, (32) also demonstrates that when the infinitival subject is
focused, an overt subject is compatible with the simple infinitive in control structures.

(i)

*[o

the

João]i

João

quer

wants

eck

resolver

solve-INF

euk

I

o

the

problema.

problem

‘João wants me to solve the problem.’

11(i) below provides attested examples of raising constructions with custar in
European Portuguese.

13A reviewer asks whether one could not get the same results under a PRO-based account by assuming
that ECM and controlled infinitivals are not phases. From this perspective, a phase intervenes
between the matrix experiencer and the reflexive in (ia), but not in (ib). Thus, deletion could be
triggered in (ib) but blocked in (ia).

(i)

a.

[proexpl custou-me [phasepro sentar-me no chão]]

b.

[proexpl custou-me [PRO a sentar-me no
chão]]

The reviewer’s point is well taken. In fact, in Martins and Nunes (forthcoming) we assume the phase-based framework and make a detailed comparison
between non-movement approaches to control and the MTC with respect to two types of co-occurrence
restrictions in European Portuguese: the one discussed here, which leads to deletion of reflexives,
and ungrammatical cases of indefinite se co-occurring with reflexive
se. Our conclusion is that when reflexive deletion is considered in isolation,
there is no clear basis for distinguishing between movement and non-movement approaches to control
under a phase-based analysis. However, when reflexive deletion is computed together with the
co-occurrence restriction involving indefinite and reflexive se, only the movement
approach is able to provide a unified account of the two phenomena. For our current purposes, it is
worth noting that our main point here – namely, to show that the different behavior displayed
by each of the infinitival complements of custar with respect to reflexive deletion
is linked to obligatory control and cannot be a simple matter of lexical subcategorization –
still remains valid if we frame our MTC account in terms of the phase approach suggested by the
reviewer.

Acknowledgements

An early version of this paper has been presented at the University of the Basque Country. We are
thankful to its audience, as well as Renato Lacerda, three anonymous reviewers, and Ana Lúcia
Santos (as JPL’s associate editor) for helpful comments and suggestions. Writing of the
current version has been partially supported by FCT – Fundação para a
Ciência e a Tecnologia (funding UID/LIN/00214/2013; first author) and CNPq (grant
307730/2015-8; second author), to which we are also thankful.

Competing Interests

The authors have no competing interests to declare.

References

Barbosa, P. (2009). A Case for an Agree-based Theory of Control. 11th Seoul International Conference on Generative Grammar Proceedings. Available at http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/000911 (Last accessed
03–08–2016).